Idea I had for a private company for more of a "publicity stunt" or "statement"...

Instead of building having profit as a main goal, if one group with the finances available could build only one or two manned spacecrafts and send them to the moon this would not only serve to bring in more money for the company, but increase competition, and give reason for governments to start working back to going to the moon.This would be instead of a company making profit from shuttling cargo (or eventually people) to and from an Earth orbit and the ISS.

The impediment is developing a low cost launch system. With a plan analogous to the advent of the microcomputer a culture developing the skills can spark the non government "age of space exploration" if there are cheap frequent launch opportunities.

Big rockets and large scale ambitious plans won't do. A journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step. Not the 100,000th.

Yes, just think of the advertising opportunities to have the words "Google" or "Microsoft" written across the moon for all to see. The next rocketship to the moon will have endorsements all over it like NASCAR or professional athletes. I can see it coming now.

Advertising in space in the form of signs on the Moon are either illegal in US, or will be discouraged. Also, it is impossible in near term to make letters large enough to be seen from Earth.

But logos on rockets, spacecraft are definitely ok, and is being done. In fact, as the 3rd stage tanks of the N Prize launcher are to use beverage cans (well designed, <40 gm/liter) carry a sponsor opportunity: A beer, energy drink or soda could sponsor, make use of their cans. Works well with 12 oz to 32 oz (335-950 ml).

This thread starts with a wise concept. Stop thinking about PROFITS! We are not at the point where there will be real profits from entrepreneurial spaceflight efforts! Most industries start in a similar situation and “Modern Science” did also. Modern Science was initially conducted by amateurs. The early “Microcomputer Age” was characterized by “How To” articles in “Byte Magazine”. Today we imagine that innovative technology should quickly lead to Multimillion-Dollar profits, but early participants in any technology have a very different experience.

The time that it takes for an industry to mature into a profit generator also varies: aviation continues to be a low profit field, where most participants are in it because they like airplanes and love to fly. They could make better money elsewhere, but would be enjoying life less. Entrepreneurial spaceflight will follow a similar pattern. Guided mountaineering has always been in this category: a skilled participant can earn a living, but is modestly paid for the time and effort involved, not paid for the risks and never builds up real wealth unless he can start an equipment business.

This rules out “Wise Investors” – for no profits are foreseeable – but not sponsors, for these efforts will attract attention (and already are). Unfortunately, corporate sponsors follow a “Herd Mentality” – looking for events with a good “Track Record” for viewers.

Like early science, and the initial microcomputer efforts, this industry will for more than a decade need a high level of cooperation, with “Intellectual Property” concepts and dreams of “Big Money” put on ice. The combined efforts of many capable teams, focusing on their special skills and equipment, WILL permit the exciting accomplishments which will attract funding from both wealthy visionaries and those sponsors who actually need to emphasize the novel and innovative aspects of their companies.

The required cooperation and assistance does not rule out “Competition” – as seen in the “Lunar Lander” and Space Elevator efforts – and those particular efforts did see a fair amount of assistance between teams. I pray that the accomplishments of those efforts will draw additional visionaries and sponsors to fund well conceived new prizes.